John Hutton: I am very sorry about the problem that exists with the escalators in my hon. Friend's constituency. Let me make it clear to him and to other hon. Members who have perfectly reasonable concerns about the issue that there is very clear legislation about the need to ensure that premises such as post offices and Crown post offices are accessible to disabled people. It will clearly be the responsibility of the franchisee—WH Smith, in this case—to make sure that all its premises are fully accessible to disabled people.

Bob Neill: The post offices in my constituency have been exactly halved, from 22 to 11, in the past seven years. Now the Post Office in another WH Smith deal proposes, in this case, to put the Crown post office upstairs rather than in a basement, but again with a one-way escalator and a lift at the back of the building, which may suit WH Smith but does not suit my constituents, yet two further post offices are ear-marked for possible closure in the latest round of consultations. What faith can my constituents have in the consultation process or in the words of the Minister's earlier reply, given that in his previous incarnation he was significantly responsible for taking away a great deal of the work that kept small post offices going—

Michael Jack: May I, too, add my words of welcome to the Secretary of State to his post and for the positive nature of his answer? However, welcome as the consultation exercise is to those who produce most of the nation's nuclear fuel at Toshiba Westinghouse in my constituency, there is concern about what happens from 2008, when the results are made public. The Government said that, in 2008, they will announce a call for applications to justify new nuclear power stations. To give certainty to those companies that are now expressing genuine interest in investing in new nuclear facilities, will he undertake, as part of the response to the consultation exercise, to set out a clear set of milestones that map out the decision-making process from now on?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome the Minister to his new role. I am sure he would agree that Digby Jones has many admirable qualities to bring to export promotion policy, but he has said that wants a more competitive corporation tax rate. He has also called trade unions "irrelevant". Indeed, he has said that he will not join a political party. Is the Minister certain, therefore, that we are not going to end up with two trade policies; one announced by his more comradely colleague in the other place and the other announced by his more gentlemanly Ministers in this House?

Gareth Thomas: I think brother Digby has a huge contribution to make. That is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked him to join the Government. We recognise that he has played an important role as head of the CBI. As always, there has been a robust debate between the CBI, the Government and a range of business organisations as to how to move forward. We welcome his experience. I am sure that he will make an important contribution in his new role in the Department. Having seen some of the press reports since his appointment, he appears, if the rumours are true, to have already secured the premier invitation available to Ministers; to appear before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I feel a little envy towards him in that regard already.

Angela Watkinson: What estimate he has made of the number of in-store take-back facilities that will be created as a result of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment regulations.

Richard Ottaway: What estimate he has made of the number of in-store take-back facilities that will be created as a result of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment regulations.

John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware of the growing evidence that people who live in close proximity to wind turbines suffer significant risks of adverse health effects? Will he give urgent consideration to increasing the minimum separation distance from large turbines to at least 2 km, and is he aware that this is another reason why my constituents in Bradwell and Tillingham are utterly opposed to the proposal to build 10 400-ft wind turbines within a mile of their homes?

Patrick McFadden: Sub-postmasters are private business people who operate 97 per cent. of the 14,000 post offices in the network. They are free to develop their associated retail businesses and to pursue commercial arrangements with whomever they want, so long as the products provided are not in direct competition with the key Post Office products that provide income to support the network.

Harriet Harman: I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures—[Hon. Members: "Thirty".] I am assisted by Opposition Members who say "Thirty". My hon. Friend raises an important point. Sex without consent is illegal: it is the crime of rape. Too often, the practice has been that the victims are supported and the traffickers prosecuted—rightly so—but the punters, the clients paying for sex with the women who have been abducted and brought to this country, are told to go on their way. We should recognise that if we tackle the demand side of this evil trade, we will go a long way. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and we will keep a firm focus and work with the prosecutors on it.

Barbara Follett: The Government are committed to promoting equality for people with gender dysphoria. Since April 2007, the duty on public authorities to eliminate sex discrimination has underpinned the specific legal protections for transsexual people in the work place that we introduced in 1999. We are now consulting on ways to extend those protections.

Barbara Follett: First, I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words, and I commend her on the work that she done in this House on women and equality issues. I shall also convey what she said to my predecessor.
	I agree that a great deal of work remains to be done in respect of the trans community. The Government and the Department of Health are trying to secure basic rights for the people in that community. After that, consultations will be held with them on the other issues that need to be addressed, one of which is the matter to which the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) referred.

Harriet Harman: With permission, before I give the business of the House, may I say that, having been a Member of the House for 25 years, it is an enormous privilege to be its leader—a member of the Government, of course, but leader of the whole House. I will always want to see, of course, that the Government are able to get through the laws that we have promised, but I and my ministerial team will do everything that we can to protect the rights of Back Benchers, to hold the Government to account, to ensure proper and timely scrutiny of legislation, and to enable the House to hold the most open, effective and best informed democratic debates in the world.
	The business for next week will be:
	Monday 9 July—Estimates [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on scientific advice, risk and evidence-based policy making, followed by a debate on the Rural Payments Agency, the implementation of the single payments scheme and the UK Government's "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy".
	Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 10 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisation) (Amendment) Order 2007, followed by Second Reading of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [ Lords].
	It is also expected that there will be a statement on children, schools and families.
	Wednesday 11 July—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Stroke Services" and a debate entitled "Mending the Broken Society". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion, followed by if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 12 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Further Education and Training Bill [ Lords].
	Friday 13 July—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 16 July—Opposition day [17th allotted day]. There will be a debate on a Liberal Democrat motion, subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 17 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 18 July—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 19 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a debate on Zimbabwe on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 20 July—The House will not be sitting.
	It is the Government's intention to make an oral statement on the content of the draft legislative programme to the House before it rises.
	 Following are the relevant documents:
	 The Seventh Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 900, Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence-Based Policy Making, and the Government Response thereto, First Special Report, Session 2005-06, HC 307.
	 Third Report, from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 107, on the Rural Payments Agency and the implementation of the Single Payment Scheme; and
	 Fourth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 546, on the UK Government's "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy".

Theresa May: On 25 September the right hon. and learned Lady said that we need to
	"Stop these excessive, ridiculous city bonuses."
	But the Treasury, then run by the current Prime Minister, replied:
	"If the City is doing well, the country is doing well. When it prospers, we all prosper."
	May we have a statement from the right hon. and learned Lady on city bonuses?
	In May, the right hon. and learned Lady, who is now also chairman of the Labour party, said that the Government
	"should do more to fund the development of trade unions",
	but the Prime Minister claims that he wants to curb the power of the trade unions within the Labour party. May we have a debate on party funding?
	On 24 May, the right hon. and learned Lady said that we would have to keep Trident under review; but the Government's policy, rightly, is that we should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. The new Prime Minister says that we must remain
	"strong in defence...retaining our independent nuclear deterrent".
	May we have a debate on Britain's independent nuclear deterrent?
	May we also have a debate on social responsibility? On 28 May, the right hon. and learned Lady said that Labour should learn from previous campaigns when it told people, "You don't need that money, we've got much better ideas about what to do with that money", so may we have a debate on who knows best—the people themselves or the woman in Whitehall?
	May we have a debate on honesty in government? On 29 May, on "Newsnight", the right hon. and learned Lady agreed that the Government should apologise for the Iraq war. Subsequently, she said:
	"I've never said the Government should apologise"
	over the Iraq war. When I raised that point in the House on Monday, she was careful not to repeat her denial on the Floor of the House, so will she now make a statement clarifying her position? Does she stand by what she originally said, or does she rebut it?
	Finally, the Prime Minister pleaded yesterday that he had been in the job only for five days. Given that the last Prime Minister resigned seven days previously, may we have a statement on who was Prime Minister for the other two days?

Harriet Harman: I join the right hon. Lady in her welcome to the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
	The right hon. Lady asked about an opportunity for the House to debate our draft legislative programme, which is part of the changes announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday. Not only will there be a statement to the House setting out the draft content of the legislative programme, but there will also be an opportunity to debate it. When I open the summer recess Adjournment debate there will be an opportunity for Back Benchers to discuss the contents of the draft legislative programme as well as raising important constituency matters. There will be a statement and then the summer recess debate.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether or not there was consultation about the carry-over of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I am afraid I cannot answer her question, but I will discuss it with my colleague the Chief Whip and Ministers at the Ministry of Justice and get back to her in writing.
	I thank the right hon. Lady for welcoming me to my new position. After 25 years in the House, I know that if she wants a debate on City bonuses, an additional debate on Trident, a debate about trade unions or a debate about honesty in government, she can use Opposition days to bring those issues to the House.
	On party funding, we await further outcomes from the cross-party work of Sir Hayden Phillips, but perhaps I could offer the right hon. Lady a non-aggression pact. It is not in the interests of the House for her to try to give me a hand-bagging every Thursday, so I hope we can get over this and actually hear from Back Benchers on both sides of the House about the important issues they want to raise.

Harriet Harman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post as shadow Leader of the House. We are well used to working together as he is my next-door neighbour in the London borough of Southwark. He too has been in the House for something like 25 years.
	Yes, I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question about whether the public will able to engage with the question of what the Government's legislative priorities should be. As well as having a statement to the House and a debate in the House, we intend to issue a document to the public that sets out what the Government's priorities are for new laws, so that the public can see it. All these things previously would have happened behind closed doors and engaged the machinery of government, but would have been hidden to the outside world.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's point on decisions about business, the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that he sees having a strong Parliament as part of strengthening government. The Government do better when they have a strong Parliament holding them to account. However, I am not able to make any announcement about making changes as to how we do business at this point.
	On the hon. Gentleman's points about interest rates, the new Chancellor will be answering Treasury questions next Thursday. I have no doubt that he will want to continue the work of the previous Chancellor, in terms of having a strong and stable economy, low inflation and high employment. For all the problems that remain in our two constituencies in inner city London, the hon. Gentleman will know that people are much better off than they were under the Tories because of the economic management of the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor.
	On the question of flooding, I too would like to add my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives and my sympathy to those who still have problems, particularly those in Hull. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend for Wentworth (John Healey), is in Hull today and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be there tomorrow. The work on the floods must go on—both preventing them and supporting those who have already been affected by them.

Ian Cawsey: My right hon. and learned Friend, and all hon. Members, will be aware of the need to improve services for people with mental health needs and their families, who are often their carers. An ongoing review in the Goole part of my constituency is trying to achieve that, but it would be boosted enormously if the local primary care trust provided funding at the level that the Department of Health says that it should. Will she find a time for a debate on mental health services so that all hon. Members can make a contribution to stopping those services being the Cinderella of the NHS?

Stephen Ladyman: May I also welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to her job? As someone who has rekindled his interest in Back-Bench rights in recent days, I am delighted that she will be protecting them for us. When will we debate the Prime Minister's ideas on constitutional reform? My constituents are not interested in anything that would damage the Union and they are certainly not interested in creating two-tier MPs, but they are interested in us developing a structure that will allow the challenges that we face in England to be thoroughly debated in this place.

Harriet Harman: I should have thought that as a fellow English Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman would welcome the notion of regional Ministers appropriately accountable to the House, and the possibility of regional Select Committees to give a greater focus on the English regions. I know that he is a supporter, as I am, of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those of us who support the Union do not see how it could work sensibly for Members elected from constituencies throughout the Union to come into the House, but for some not to be able to vote on some legislation. Having been elected from the various parts of the Union to the House, all Members must be entitled to vote on all legislation, whether they are from Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or London.

Harriet Harman: I congratulate the work of all those involved in the outdoor classroom in my hon. Friend's constituency, and acknowledge the wider point that she makes about outdoor work between schools and on the land held by schools. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to stop Members congratulating me. It might be the last time they ever do so.

Pete Wishart: May I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish national party, and take the opportunity to remind her gently that there are more than three parties in the House when she comes to represent its views. May I ask for a debate on airport security and use the opportunity to pay tribute to John Smeaton, the one-man scourge of international terrorism at Glasgow airport, the hero of Abbotsinch airport. I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that he and other members of the public showed immense courage and bravery in tackling the terrorists at Glasgow airport. Will she use her new office to convince the Prime Minister that honours should be winging their way to Glasgow?

David Willetts: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Secretary of State can respond to the questions, which will concern many people in higher education, including students.
	Will the Secretary of State tell us more about the prospects for the future of the bursaries scheme? There has been media comment in the past few weeks about what might happen to bursaries, and Minister with responsibility for higher education, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), made carefully drafted comments, in which he appeared to cast doubt on their long-term future. Will changes to bursaries form any part of the package and funding changes that he announced?
	On a wider point, does the Secretary of State accept that approximately 90 per cent. of people who leave school with two good A-levels already get to university? The deep challenge that we must all confront is that, if we want more people to have access to university with the right qualifications to benefit from higher education, we need to examine what is happening in schools. Is not the fundamental challenge, which everyone raises with us, increasing access to the GCSEs and A-levels that students need if they are to have a prospect of getting to university? Is not that the problem that the Government need to tackle?
	Let me tell the Secretary of State about a visit that I recently paid to one of the excellent summer schools, which are aimed at broadening access to university. There, teenagers who had not previously thought of going to university suddenly realised that they could benefit from it, and then one saw their shock when they realised that the GCSEs that they had been studying, and perhaps the A-level for which they had been entered, were not those that they needed to do the course about which they had become excited. The Government's targets and points system mean that many teenagers are encouraged to do the GCSEs and A-levels that do not offer them the best prospect of getting to university.
	Meanwhile, study of the subjects that are often crucial to getting to our most academically valuable universities are declining. There is a decline in the number of people who study modern languages and individual real sciences at GSCE and A-level in state schools, and an increase in the proportion of students who study the crunchy and more academic subjects—further maths and modern languages—at private schools. How can the Government achieve their objectives of widening participation if the only lever that they pull changes the maintenance grant when fundamental improvement in the quality of education at school is the key? Is not that another reason why splitting the Department for Education and Skills in two will make it harder to achieve those important objectives?

Sarah Teather: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new job. May I say how much I look forward to working with him? I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister was here earlier. I am afraid that he is not in his place now, as usual for the Liberal Democrat response. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that he was here at the start of the statement; I hope that that means he will be making student support a priority. I certainly welcome the recognition that the previous system was woefully inadequate, and that a family on an annual income of £17,5000 is hardly wealthy. My concern, however, is whether the extension of maintenance grants to more people might be a prelude to lifting the cap. Is that the Secretary of State's intention? I would be grateful if he could make that clear.
	The Secretary of State spoke earlier about part-time students. Does he recognise the challenges for students who are studying at less than 50 per cent. of a full-time course and who therefore have no access whatever to maintenance grants? Part-time students are often older or poorer. They are more likely to be from an ethnic minority background, and very likely to have caring responsibilities. Yet they are just the kind of people whom Leitch recommends must be attracted into education. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the income of such students is severely affected by having to pay fees up front? Does he propose to change that? I must remind him that we were vehemently opposed to the introduction of those fees in the first place. Similarly, does he have any plans to extend maintenance loans to students studying courses in further education colleges?
	Is the Secretary of State considering introducing a national bursary system? I should like to add my comments to those that others have made about the increase in funding for mentors. That is welcome, as long as it happens at a very early age, because young people make choices about their future as they enter secondary school. He failed to answer a question from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on how the proposals are to be funded. Does he intend to fund them by cutting other aspects of the higher education package, or should we expect to hear of changes to the interest rates on maintenance loans over the next few years? I hope that he will make that clear in his response.

Andy Reed: I welcome the package, not just for the 14,000 students at Loughborough university, but for many of the parents for whom it will make a difference. While the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is in the Chamber, may I ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills to use the Sure Start programme to drive down even deeper and earlier in a child's life to encourage those parents who probably would not have considered higher education as an option for their child even at that early stage? I know from my own experience that staying on in education beyond 16 was never considered in our family, so encouraging that expectation is an important consideration.
	Will my right hon. Friend at some stage explain to me, perhaps in writing, what additional support can be given to the type of students at Loughborough university, with its connection with the 2012 Olympics and the additional support that is required for our future athletes who are based there?

David Taylor: I warmly welcome the statement. It is true that the number of young people from working-class and lower-income families who are at university is still too low, and in terms of the Oxbridge and Russell group universities, the level is a disgrace. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he intends to promote a review of the education maintenance allowance? Eligibility for that is crucial for the commitment that he made to 16-year-olds to support them through higher education. Some young people are still just beyond the fringes of eligibility for EMA and would benefit from higher education, but they are leaving the system at that point. We need to do more for that group of young people.

John Denham: The EMA is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, and I cannot commit him to policy changes in that area. I said in my statement, however, that we would need to look at the detail of how the EMA works, not least to ensure that in a new system, and one that is implicitly much more generous, it is run in a rigorous way that ensures that only those people who are entitled to it get it. If, in the process of that review, we can consider the issues that my hon. Friend raises, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I will want to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that hon. Members can see how many people are seeking to catch my eye? If we can have one brief question and, hopefully, a fairly brief response from the Secretary of State, we will get through as many hon. Members as we possibly can.

Helen Jones: It is me, not Lynn, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I add to the chorus of congratulations offered to my right hon. Friend on his statement, which will be of great benefit to families in my constituency. However, I ask him not to be diverted by the siren voices that call for us to stop looking at providing fair access. When he has his feet firmly under the table, will he look into why some universities are much more successful at recruiting students from lower income backgrounds than others, and also at the bursary system because those universities that currently recruit many students from poorer backgrounds often lose out because of the costs of the bursaries they pay?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Ah—my hon. Friend, who is now an Opposition Whip, has pointed out that he, too, is a chartered surveyor. I was of course including him among the four, but I congratulate him not only on being a member of the eminent body of chartered surveyors, but on his promotion to the Opposition Whip's Bench. It is great to see him there. So there are only five chartered surveyors in the House, and I am delighted to be here.
	Perhaps I should say a little more about estate agents and some of the practices that they get up to when I discuss the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), but suffice it to say at this stage that the purpose of our new clause is to update the regulation of estate agents. Although we do not approve of the Liberal Democrats' proposal for a full licensing scheme, not including the residential letting sector, the direct sales from developers sector and some agency sales via the internet are a considerable lacuna—perhaps the biggest in the Bill. We want to be very clear whether the Bill does cover that latter activity; I hope that the Minister can enlighten us when he replies.
	As I said, the rental sector has increased by at least a third since the 1979 Act was passed. The letting sector is huge and if today's interest rate rises are anything to go by, I suspect that it will become even bigger. Of course, it deals with some of the more vulnerable in our society—those who are less able to defend themselves when things to wrong—so not including it in the Bill seems a huge lacuna. I should be grateful if the Minister enlightened us as to why the Bill does not cover the rental market.
	Also on the increase—and also not included in the Bill—is direct sale from developers to consumers. Anybody involved in the housing market, particularly in the south-east, knows that this sector, too, is growing apace. However, it seems that that sector is not to be regulated, either. A lot of people buy houses off-plan directly from developers. They might be first-time buyers, and they probably have not got the expertise genuinely to assess whether the developer in question is selling them a pup, or they are getting the purchase that they envisage from the perhaps rather over-coloured plans. That is the second sector that, in our view, the Bill does not adequately cover, and which new clause 1 would include.
	The third sector consists of the various types of organisations—and they do vary—which sell or let houses via the internet. According to a rough estimate that I made the other day, there are at least 100 such organisations offering services in that way. Again, the more vulnerable will be tempted use their internet search engines to find some form of letting arrangement and to deal with such an agency. They might not have the knowledge to understand whether their transaction is being handled through a true and honest mechanism. For that reason, such activities need in some way to be regulated under the Bill.
	Before the Minister replies, I should point out that our new clause would not alter the Bill one iota: all it would do is give the Secretary of State the power to deal with such matters. As the market is developing in a fairly dynamic way, particularly on the internet, it would be very sensible to include this power in the Bill. It might prove to be like section 22 of the 1979 Act, in that it is never used, but given that the House is unlikely, owing to pressure on parliamentary time, to return to the issue of regulating estate agencies for at least five years—perhaps even 10 years, given how this House operates and the sheer volume of legislation that it has to handle—not dealing with this issue now would be a real missed opportunity. I hope that the Minister will think again, even at this late stage, although I do not hold out any particular hopes.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park will move her new clause 2 in a minute, but I hope that it is in order, while I am on my feet, just to say a few words about it now—or would you prefer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I deal with it after the hon. Lady has moved it?

Susan Kramer: I thank the right hon. Member. If he remembers, there were many points at issue that day and we were trying to cover a vast amount of ground. It seemed to us that we might get some movement on the issue without having to force the matter to a Division. That did not happen, and it would be good for the House to have an opportunity to make its opinions clear on an issue that is well understood by the public and about which the public care. Members of the House, certainly of my party, would like to have the opportunity to express themselves on the issue, but that decision is in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is dealing with the matter in a reasonable way, and much of what he said I expected him to say. New clause 2, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, contains two important aspects that we have not yet discussed. It is relevant to discuss it now. One is the issue of professional indemnity for estate agents. If they do not have professional indemnity, one must rely solely on the redress scheme. The Government ought to think about that.
	On Second Reading in the other place, a great deal of discussion was had on the Farepak debacle and the whole issue of holding other peoples' money. There will be a number of activities in which estate agents hold peoples' money. It will not be long before we have a scandalous case of a rogue estate agent holding a client's money and disappearing with it. I wonder whether the Government could give some thought to that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is universally agreed in the House that what we want to see in the United Kingdom is the best consumer protection in the world. The Bill goes some way towards that, although there are areas in which we would have liked the Government to go further. I shall deal with those later in my speech.
	We believe in strong consumer choice and freedom. We believe that information should be accessible so that people can exercise that choice. Conservatives have supported the broad thrust of the Bill, and we welcome this move by the Government. To that end, we have scrutinised the Bill in a positive and constructive way, as have the Liberal Democrats. We tabled more than 45 amendments in the Public Bill Committee alone. The Government have either accepted them or introduced amendments of their own. They introduced 11 as a direct result of that scrutiny.
	We are pleased by the bipartisan nature of the Government's conduct of this part of the business. Conservative amendments have improved the Bill both in the Commons and in another place. Our emphasis was on enhancing the accountability of the new National Consumer Council. That has included ensuring that the Minister makes public the reasons behind any approval that the Government give to the NCC to acquire a corporate body.
	We welcome the announcement that the Minister made in his Third Reading speech of the new chair of the NCC, Lord Whitty. He has come a long way since he was general secretary of the Labour party, and he now has a huge challenge on his hands. We wish him well because we want to make the provisions in the Bill work, especially the combining of all the functions of the consumer council.
	I welcome the fact that the NCC will have offices in three parts of the United Kingdom—London, Cardiff and Belfast. I just hope that the good citizens of Scotland will not feel left out. I was delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and not forgetting the good citizens of Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), but I am surprised that he did not refer to the fact that none of the offices were in Scotland. I hope that his constituents will not feel left out.
	We have helped consumers by ensuring that best practice in complaints handling is followed by all energy companies. We have ensured that the new NCC better reflects the successful operation and follows the best practice of the existing council. However, on the question of estate agents and supporting consumers, we feel that the Government have been half-hearted in their approach. I know that we had a bit of banter across the Dispatch Box on Report, but the opportunity to look at the regulation and operation of estate agents has been missed. Some of the most vulnerable in our society who get involved only in the letting side of the residential market will feel left out. I am sure that that is a matter that this Government or a Government of a different colour will have to deal with in the future. So the Bill has missed an opportunity in that respect.
	I welcome what the Minister said today—that those functions laid down in the Estate Agents Act 1979 will be extended to cover activities on the web and direct sales by developers. If those activities were covered by the definition laid down in the 1979 Act, they would be covered by the redress scheme and so on in the Bill. It is a lacuna in the Bill that it does not include the lettings market, especially as it is now becoming such a big sector of the residential market.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) said on Second Reading, the Bill is important for consumers. We all recognise that. It merges key consumer bodies and makes a serious attempt to give consumers greater rights when buying or selling their house. I pay special tribute to the work done in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox, a former chair of the NCC who is greatly knowledgeable on this subject. I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) who would be handling the Bill but he cannot be in the Chamber today, as I have already explained. He played a big part in Committee. I pay tribute to all those who have taken part in the Bill's proceedings. We cannot be proud of every Bill that goes through this place, but we can be proud of this one; it is a major step forward in consumer protection.
	Consumer protection is best achieved through a spirit of shared responsibility, with the Government, businesses and consumers all working together, although that is not always reflected in reality when businesses fall short of their responsibilities. As the Minister said, it is important that consumers have the means to obtain timely, efficient redress. That is the whole thrust of the Bill. If consumers cannot obtain that redress, we are all failing. It is on the basis of those principles that we approach the Bill.
	We set out a three-point plan when we began our deliberations on the Bill. The first point was to update the definition of estate agency work to include off-plan sales, internet property intermediaries and direct home sales by house builders. As we all recognise, 28 years have passed since the original legislation came into force, and we have had more than enough discussion about estate agents to understand what is in the Bill and what is, sadly, lacking. Secondly, we want to widen the scope of the Estate Agents Act 1979 to cover lettings and the residential property market and, thirdly, to increase the penalty for rogue estate agents to a maximum of £10,000. A maximum of £5,000 was set in 1979 and the figure has been unchanged since. Our belief is that it no longer represents a real penalty for rogue estate agents.
	We recognise that following the Government's farcical efforts to introduce home information packs, they will be more wary of regulation for the housing market, but as I have explained, it is important in respect of the lettings market where there are some vulnerable people. Estate agents would have largely policed HIPs, and although we have regulated HIPs we have not yet completely regulated the estate agents who will administer them. There seems to be a certain irony in that.
	We differ from the Government in how best to ensure that complaints are dealt with quickly and effectively. Redress schemes are at the heart of the Bill, yet they are the last resort of an unhappy consumer. In the first instance, redress should be sought from the company from which goods or services were purchased. Effective complaints procedures at that stage would ensure that more complaints were resolved at the outset, which is surely a desirable objective. That would reduce rather than increase the burden on the new NCC and make for better satisfied consumers, too. Good internal complaints procedures are the best way to protect and empower consumers, yet there is little on the subject in the Bill.
	Existing redress schemes vary greatly, from granting intermediate access to insisting on a three-month wait before the consumer can invoke the services of the ombudsman. Three months is a long time to wait and creates an opportunity for supplier companies to avoid resolving complaints quickly, knowing that the process may turn out to be too long and drawn-out for the consumer to bother pursuing things further. As Members of Parliament, we all know that unless our constituents instruct us to pursue complicated and time-consuming matters on their behalf, they tend to be deterred; they say that it is all too difficult and just go away. It would be unfortunate if that were an inadvertent effect of the Bill.
	Conservative Members believe that companies should have in place effective internal complaints procedures to deal with consumers quickly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has pointed out, a similar model already exists in the financial services sector. The Financial Services Authority requires that membership of the financial ombudsman service is dependent on an organisation's having an appropriate and effective internal complaint-handling function. We hope that a similar system will be replicated by the NCC and the bodies it looks after.
	Initially, the Government made only a small concession towards that approach when the issue was raised in another place. The phrase they introduced in clause 49 was deliberately vague; they required regulators only to
	"have regard to...such principles as...the generally accepted principles of best practice".
	That is far from specific and far from instructive. Through guidance to the NCC, we hope that the Government can help to resolve this issue. We are pleased that they have finally accepted the arguments we made in Committee and introduced seven amendments to make it compulsory for regulators to set standards of best practice.
	Our third area of disquiet concerns the independence of the new National Consumer Council. The Government have said that they want the new NCC to be independent and for the relationship between it and the Government to be transparent and accountable. That is a laudable aim, but I fear that the text of the Bill reveals a rather different approach. Clauses 17 to 19 concern reports and advice that the NCC may produce on consumer matters. In each of the circumstances described in the Bill, there is discretion as to whether the reports are made publicly available. When the NCC itself determines that the reports shall be produced, it has discretion to publish. I think that, in this day of openness, there should, on the whole, be a presumption that the NCC should publish all reports unless, as we discussed previously on Report, they are commercially sensitive.
	When the Government ask the NCC to report on specific matters, the Secretary of State chooses whether the public ever get to see what the NCC has to say. This is a serious matter of public accountability and transparency for the consumer. The NCC will receive public funding, but the reports that it provides to the Government are not necessarily, so it seems, to be made available to the very taxpayers who fund it.
	As I have said, we believe that all reports produced by the NCC, unless they cover commercially sensitive information, should be automatically available to the public. That need not be a cost issue, as has been claimed. The documents could simply be made available via the NCC's website—a very simple matter these days. The Minister in the other place argued against that suggestion by claiming that not all such reports would be "of interest to consumers", but I fail to see how reports from a public body set up to look after consumers' interests would not be of relevance and interest to consumers. I fail to work out what bizarre leap of logic produced this decision. It is not up to the Government to decide whether the reports are of interest to the consumer; it is up to consumers to decide whether they want to see the reports. If they are published on the website, they will be able to exercise just that choice. It seems a bizarre decision.
	It seems that the Government wish to use the NCC partially for their own purpose, or, at least, that could be the perception. The fact that the NCC will not have the right to publish its own reports goes to the heart of the question of whether the relationship between the Government and the NCC is sufficiently transparent. Conservative Members believe that it is essential that all such reports are published and that the NCC is perceived to be genuinely independent from the Government.
	For years the NCC has been funded by the Government, but it has been unhindered in choosing for itself the focus of the work that it undertakes and then reporting on it as it wished. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a better way to continue in the interests of empowering consumers.
	We have had lengthy debates that have thoroughly examined the Bill, most of whose aims we thoroughly applaud. We hope that the NCC and the supplementary provisions in the Bill—for example, on solicited and unsolicited protection for the consumer in part 3—that we have hardly discussed today will work out well in practice. We commend the Government for having brought the Bill before the House, and we will not oppose it.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) on securing the debate. It may well be that the problem affects a relatively small number of families in our society, but that does not make it any less important. Enduring and severe mental health issues are a challenge for the individual child and young person's development, but they can also have a major effect on family dynamics, and relationships. We should be trying to create a system that not only assesses but treats a family holistically and does everything that it can to support a family to get through and to cope with those psychiatric or psychological problems, enabling the family to remain together. Unfortunately, in some circumstances it is in the interests of both the child and the family for the child or young person to be removed from that home environment. However, in many circumstances, with the right preventive and holistic support, that child and young person can be supported to remain within the family environment.
	The hon. Lady has identified a major problem as a consequence of a court judgment. It has changed some of the decisions that have been made within the health service in terms not only of the assessment but of the treatment of families in such circumstances.
	In recent times—I should put the matter in context—we have made major progress in respect of mental health services for children and young people. Child and adolescent mental health services teams have built up in every part of the country, from a very low base, after the Government set a target and, as a result, there is a much more comprehensive range of child and adolescent mental health services in every community. The Mental Health Bill, which finally passed all its stages in this House yesterday, deals with age-appropriate treatment for young people with mental health problems. That is another advance with regard to mental health provision.
	I acknowledge, however, that the hon. Lady has identified an anomaly and possibly an unintended consequence. The ministerial team at the Department of Health has undergone a major change, so it is not entirely clear who will be responsible for which policy area, but that will be finalised today or tomorrow. I assure the hon. lady, however, that I will take responsibility for ensuring that the Department looks specifically at the consequences of the court judgment, its impact on the way services have related to families and, where appropriate and necessary, that the Department makes changes to ensure that those families have access to the kind of treatment that would give them the best chance of getting through those difficult and stressful life experiences and coming out of the other end with as decent a life as possible.
	I do not want to go on any longer than is necessary. The hon. Lady has raised an issue of import and significance and I give her and the House a commitment that we will take it seriously and respond directly to her in the next few weeks on the progress that we have been able to make.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.